AuthorTopic: New Britain Hypothesis (Read 94417 times)

Oooooh. Do you mean that when I say I believe that the Niku hypothesis is the most likely to be true that I mean what I say?

Do you mean that when I say we need faith in unproven propositions in order to reason about anything that I am making an act of faith?

Do you mean to say that my expression of my beliefs is consistent with my epistemology?

Whoa. I'll have to think about this. I had no idea that my beliefs had been spelled out so clearly that people could actually detect what I think.

Quote

Nice thing faith, explains all sorts of tricky metaphysical puzzles that mere mortals like myself see answered only when the hard data is in.

Now you're indulging in equivocation, and that is not fair in rational discourse.

The act of faith that I have made in TIGHAR's hypothesis is not the same as the act of faith that I make in God. The same word is used, but it has two quite different meanings in the two different contexts. In the first context, it means "taking some things as true that have not been proven to be true." Faith in the power of the mind to make contact with reality and then to draw sound inferences from the observations is necessary to think about any reality in this universe.

In the second case, my faith in the existence, beauty, goodness, and truth of God is related to "tricky metaphysical puzzles."

Hmmm.... it all comes back to the rather circular assertion that if one has faith in one's belief then one must believe in one's faith. If you are content to apply that circular reasoning to the subject under discussion then you are hedging your bets. A wise practice in financial matters but one that allows little room for manoeuvre if by chance data comes to light that refutes the original hypothesis.

Yes, Mr. McKay, as a matter of fact, I am. Certain enough that I tend to put a lot more weight on the opinions and actions of people who have actually gone out and done things and looked and gathered and sifted and looked some more, over the decades, than the armchair Monday-morning quarterback types who sit on their hands, contribute nothing, but are very very free with their opinions of where TIGHAR ought to go, where it ought to look, how it ought to do it, etc., etc.

Interesting take on the reason why people discuss evidence that is offered to support a hypothesis. In effect you are saying that I must pay a donation to disagree but if I agree than it will cost me nothing.

Hmmm.... it all comes back to the rather circular assertion that if one has faith in one's belief then one must believe in one's faith.

If you have a perfect proof that reason is reliable (complete and consistent), that our senses can give us empirical information, and that we can reason reliably from sense information, then please provide the publication in which you have made this argument. You will have satisfied the desire of Hilbert to show that there is nothing unknown in mathematics and overcome Gödel's Theorem. Logicians, mathematicians, and philosophers of science will be greatly indebted to you for clearing up these little doubts about what we can and cannot prove.

If you have no such perfect proof, then you, like the rest of us, operate on faith in reason.

Quote

If you are content to apply that circular reasoning to the subject under discussion then you are hedging your bets.

Nope. Just being clear about is and is not proven and about what is and is not provable.

Quote

A wise practice in financial matters but one that allows little room for manoeuvre if by chance data comes to light that refutes the original hypothesis.

If you have the data that refutes Gödel, your name will live as long as our culture lives. If you don't have the data, then you're just another believer in the value of using our minds as best we can, even when we can't prove everything.

It's probably just another coincidence but, looking at 'the wreck' photograph, which turned out to be a photo of a Japanese plane and, the descriptions given by the surviving members of the Aussie patrol of the wreckage they saw there does seem to be quite a lot of similarities.Not saying that 'the wreck' photo is what the Aussie patrol saw, it isn't. But the similarities are there...The missing/concealed tail assemblyOne engine attached, the other notThe thin 2 bladed propHave a look at 'wreck photo' and the description of the wreckage given by the AussiesI can't post anything from this contraption I am using at the moment so will show the 'wreck photo'and description later.

It's probably just another coincidence but, looking at 'the wreck' photograph, which turned out to be a photo of a Japanese plane and, the descriptions given by the surviving members of the Aussie patrol of the wreckage they saw there does seem to be quite a lot of similarities.Not saying that 'the wreck' photo is what the Aussie patrol saw, it isn't. But the similarities are there...The missing/concealed tail assemblyOne engine attached, the other notThe thin 2 bladed propHave a look at 'wreck photo' and the description of the wreckage given by the AussiesI can't post anything from this contraption I am using at the moment so will show the 'wreck photo'and description later.

Research Bulletin #10 ("The Wreck" photo and discussion to which John Ousterhout links, above) was published by TIGHAR at the end of 1998. Be sure to read the final word about "the Wreck", in Research Bulletin #55 that came out in 2009. That makes it very unlikely that "the Wreck" is related to the New Britain Hypothesis.

He rather calls your commentary for what it is - and has clearly illustrated the contrast between the smart risk taker who rationally comes to his own level of confidence and goes forth, and the risk-risk-tsk-tsk armchair observer who constantly questions the judgment of others - somehow viewing it as always inferior to his own.

And, as we've seen through a plethora of exchanges, you have no more qualification to place your quality of judgment above that of other worthy people - many of whom have shown themselves far more qualified in many respects, note:

- You view the possibility of NR16020 as having arrived at New Britain to be a real possibility worthy of a well-funded expedition to that place, as you've posted earlier.

- In making that recommendation you reveal an interest in the matter - but also that you are not well qualified, apparently, to make critical judgments about things like radio propagation, how NR16020 could have been heard near Howland, and how NR16020 could have made it all the way back down to East New Britain on a then-remaining 2 or 3 hours of fuel remaining.

- You also reveal a startling 'faith' in an anecdotal report, something you've criticized elsewhere, in the veracity and accuracy of the tale of the tag; that in itself is peculiar in that it also reveals that you have you own stubborn biases - something you enjoy identifying in others, in that with the tag we depend not only on the anecdotal report, but on the meaning of the reported 'number' born on it. Again, just as a partially water-filled Benedictine bottle found with a partial skeleton can have many sources and meanings, so can such a tag.

But in all this, you simply reveal that you too are a man of bias and less-than superior judgment in all matters. I think at some point it does fairly beg the question Monty put so well, in a manner of speaking: put your money where you mouth is.

That is not meant literally - you are not obligated to 'pay-up to speak-up' here. It has much more to do with your general lack of confidence in most things, other than a point or two here or there that happens to appeal to you.

So I don't think Monty said what you have suggested, not at all.

LTM -

Well are you glad you got that off your chest. Seems to me you should go back and read exactly what I have said rather than put your spin on it. True I find the New Britain hypothesis interesting and I do not deny it, but I feel that because it conflicts with the Nikumaroro hypothesis is the real cause for your attack on me.

"It has much more to do with your general lack of confidence in most things, other than a point or two here or there that happens to appeal to you.". Well you can't have it both ways you know. I freely admit to not being informed enough on the question of aircraft navigation to become involved in that discussion, so if I did you would then only criticize me for making errors that showed my lack of knowledge I suspect - pointless exercise as far as I can see.

I was an archaeologist, archaeologists follow artifact and historical chains of evidence to arrive at an understanding of what they are studying. Much of the evidence for the Nikumaroro hypothesis is material and historical so I feel that I do have the professional training to both comprehend it and to discuss the assessments of it. Do you have similar experience of the use of material and historical data? or is it that you are offended because you find my reluctance to accept some of the pie in the sky reconstructions of what that meager data bank offers contradicts what you would like the evidence to prove but which it fails to do. If that is the case then I offer no apology.

Oh and I think I understood exactly what Monty meant - but let me just say that my charity dollar for this financial year has already been committed to the UNHCR and the Red Cross.

There is no conflict: you can love the East New Britain hypothesis all you wish, no problem here and I sense no threat whatever to other interests in that.

I am not, however, obliged to ignore unfounded questioning of the judgment of others for their interest in a different hypothesis. I don't see what makes you expert enough to question the judgment of others when they may have understandings or capabilities of reason that you do not possess. When you do that, your stated preferences for the East New Britain hypothesis become fair game - the basis of your own judgments included.

.....

Perhaps one should simply realize that if one would poke his head into the kitchen to criticize the cook's own omelet, then one might expect to cope with a bit of heat, that's all. That's how 'discussions' work I believe.

LTM -

If you find no threat in the Nikumaroro hypothesis why are you continuing to attack me for mentioning it as one of the current four explanatory hypotheses and pointing out that the C/N tag is an interesting item - do you feel threatened by that? The more I look at the reasoning behind the East New Britain hypothesis the less I am drawn to it - but then that is because I am willing to adjust my understanding as new evidence is produced - and if the current trip to Nikumaroro does find the wreck then I will accept it. But until that evidence is found the matter is still undecided despite your attempts to increase the heat in the kitchen - ironically of course all this heat is producing very little light so I can understand your obvious frustration that after all this time you still are waiting for someone, somewhere, to produce the evidence to validate your preferred hypothesis.

As for silly remarks about me inferring that other people's judgement is "inferior to my own" then I presume that you see all reservations expressed by anyone about someone's thoughts or suggestions to be inferring that. I have never claimed any authority based on some imaginary superiority. The only reason I ever had for introducing my own academic qualifications in archaeology was to indicate that when I commented on an archaeological matter I had the proper training to do so. I note that you support your view with a statement "... my understandings of navigation and range." - can I infer from that your skills are exempt from your own standards of polite discourse while mine aren't?

And "Archaeology is your area of professional knowledge - so how can you rationally claim a superior sense as to why we'd be risking too much by looking at Niku when your own field does not qualify you to accurately judge how and where such a flight might have ended, i.e. via the means and limits of navigation and physical range?" - I note that Gary LaPook also questions the assumption that the flight might have ended on Nikumaroro precisely on navigational grounds. Now he appears to know considerably more about such matters than you so given your stated standards I'll accept his view rather than your own, and now having read and understood what he is saying then I feel quite certain that is the wiser path which, until evidence to the contrary is produced, makes my assessment of the value of the recovered artifacts quite valid.

"The conundrum of the limits of charity is of your own making and smells of red herring." - nope, no red herring, just a lack of money which as I failed to make myself a multi-Billionaire probably does make that of my own making or lack of making, so I will concede that my uncharitable attitude is indeed of my own making. I do profoundly wish that I was a multi-billionaire but alas this seems unlikely to occur so TIGHAR is just going to have to get a grip and accept my poverty - I know that I have.

Another consideration to be taken into account of course is the fact that if they did make it back to somewhere near Raboul, New Britain then, they would have passed quite a few landfalls where they could have put it down prior to reaching New Britain. I am taking into account the range and fuel consumption for the trip back to New Britain which of course relies heavily on a strong (understatement) tail wind to achieve the distance required.Why not put it down before the gas runs out completely? Or were they trying for one of Rabouls airfields?If it is/was the Electra of course.

There are lots of possibilities. As I believe Malcolm has pointed out, perhaps 4 chief ones - Splashed, Japanese Capture, Gardner and I guess these other 'return' ideas.

Odd, but Gardner loosely fits into the latter category, although it represents more of a 'right turn' than a 'return'. For me it's a case of math - return doesn't buy you anything because of the required range, but a right turn might, IF you had a turn for the better in your luck after missing Howland, etc. I freely admit it would have taken a fair degree of luck to blunder into one of those scattered Phoenix islands if you didn't know rather well where you were starting from. Of course I could go on about the LOP, etc. but this string is about New Britain.

As to New Britain, as Malcolm has just said, as he understands more about the challenges, the less taken he tends to be. That's a tough reality in this thing for us all, no matter which theory we think makes the most sense: we encounter new information that causes constant analysis - not an unhealthy thing, I agree.

All that said, I wish we had the time, money and legs to chase down every story of a lost airplane in all these places - each may have a great story to tell.

Yes Jeff, I am prepared to give most scenarios a reasonable shout so, given the repair tag was attached to AE's Electra I was trying to work out the rationale for turning back AND then over-flying landfall to crash in the vicinity of Raboul. Of course that assumes they were able to make the distance, however unlikely that was as well.

They don't have an account of the finding of the tag that includes copying its contents.

That have a marginal note on the side of a map whose provenance is alleged to be unimpeachable.

To get the note to become the contents of the tag, one has to make several leaps of faith.

Then, and only then, do the N.B. crew get to start using that allegation as a grounds for TIGHAR to spend some money on the N.B. search. So far as I can tell, Malcolm is proposing that the money run in that direction, because TIGHAR has money to fund expeditions and the N.B. people don't. His sorrow that Amelia researchers don't "pool resources" runs in one direction only.

Copyright 2019 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.